Comparative effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions on mortality outcomes: metaepidemiological study.

IF 16.2 1区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES British Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2015-11-01 DOI:10.1136/bjsports-2015-f5577rep
Huseyin Naci, John P A Ioannidis
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions on mortality outcomes: metaepidemiological study.","authors":"Huseyin Naci, John P A Ioannidis","doi":"10.1136/bjsports-2015-f5577rep","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the comparative effectiveness of exercise versus drug interventions on mortality outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Metaepidemiological study.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials with mortality outcomes comparing the effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions with each other or with control (placebo or usual care).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, May 2013.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Mortality.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We combined study level death outcomes from exercise and drug trials using random effects network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 16 (four exercise and 12 drug) meta-analyses. Incorporating an additional three recent exercise trials, our review collectively included 305 randomised controlled trials with 339,274 participants. Across all four conditions with evidence on the effectiveness of exercise on mortality outcomes (secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation of stroke, treatment of heart failure, prevention of diabetes), 14,716 participants were randomised to physical activity interventions in 57 trials. No statistically detectable differences were evident between exercise and drug interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and prediabetes. Physical activity interventions were more effective than drug treatment among patients with stroke (odds ratios, exercise vanticoagulants 0.09, 95% credible intervals 0.01 to 0.70 and exercise v antiplatelets 0.10, 0.01 to 0.62). Diuretics were more effective than exercise in heart failure (exercise v diuretics 4.11,1.17 to 24.76). Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although limited in quantity, existing randomised trial evidence on exercise interventions suggests that exercise and many drug interventions are often potentially similar in terms of their mortality benefits in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation after stroke, treatment of heart failure, and prevention of diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9276,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"49 21","pages":"1414-22"},"PeriodicalIF":16.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ff/8e/bjsports-2015-f5577rep.PMC4680125.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-f5577rep","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine the comparative effectiveness of exercise versus drug interventions on mortality outcomes.

Design: Metaepidemiological study.

Eligibility criteria: Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials with mortality outcomes comparing the effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions with each other or with control (placebo or usual care).

Data sources: Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, May 2013.

Main outcome measure: Mortality.

Data synthesis: We combined study level death outcomes from exercise and drug trials using random effects network meta-analysis.

Results: We included 16 (four exercise and 12 drug) meta-analyses. Incorporating an additional three recent exercise trials, our review collectively included 305 randomised controlled trials with 339,274 participants. Across all four conditions with evidence on the effectiveness of exercise on mortality outcomes (secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation of stroke, treatment of heart failure, prevention of diabetes), 14,716 participants were randomised to physical activity interventions in 57 trials. No statistically detectable differences were evident between exercise and drug interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and prediabetes. Physical activity interventions were more effective than drug treatment among patients with stroke (odds ratios, exercise vanticoagulants 0.09, 95% credible intervals 0.01 to 0.70 and exercise v antiplatelets 0.10, 0.01 to 0.62). Diuretics were more effective than exercise in heart failure (exercise v diuretics 4.11,1.17 to 24.76). Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was not significant.

Conclusions: Although limited in quantity, existing randomised trial evidence on exercise interventions suggests that exercise and many drug interventions are often potentially similar in terms of their mortality benefits in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation after stroke, treatment of heart failure, and prevention of diabetes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
运动和药物干预对死亡率结果的比较效果:后流行病学研究。
目的:确定运动与药物干预对死亡率结果的比较效果。设计:后流行病学研究。入选标准:对随机对照试验进行荟萃分析,将运动和药物干预的死亡率结果相互比较或与对照组(安慰剂或常规护理)进行比较。数据来源:Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013年5月。主要结局指标:死亡率。数据综合:我们使用随机效应网络荟萃分析将运动和药物试验的研究级死亡结果结合起来。结果:我们纳入了16项荟萃分析(4项运动分析和12项药物分析)。纳入另外三项近期的运动试验,我们的综述共纳入305项随机对照试验,共有339,274名参与者。在有证据表明运动对死亡率结果有效的所有四种情况下(冠心病的二级预防、中风的康复、心力衰竭的治疗、糖尿病的预防),在57项试验中,14,716名参与者被随机分配到体育活动干预组。在冠心病和前驱糖尿病的二级预防中,运动和药物干预之间没有明显的统计学差异。在卒中患者中,体育活动干预比药物治疗更有效(优势比,运动抗凝剂0.09,95%可信区间0.01 ~ 0.70,运动vs抗血小板0.10,0.01 ~ 0.62)。利尿剂比运动对心力衰竭更有效(运动vs利尿剂4.11,1.17 - 24.76)。直接比较和间接比较的不一致性不显著。结论:尽管数量有限,但现有的关于运动干预的随机试验证据表明,在冠心病的二级预防、中风后康复、心力衰竭治疗和糖尿病预防方面,运动和许多药物干预在降低死亡率方面往往具有潜在的相似性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
27.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
217
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM) is a dynamic platform that presents groundbreaking research, thought-provoking reviews, and meaningful discussions on sport and exercise medicine. Our focus encompasses various clinically-relevant aspects such as physiotherapy, physical therapy, and rehabilitation. With an aim to foster innovation, education, and knowledge translation, we strive to bridge the gap between research and practical implementation in the field. Our multi-media approach, including web, print, video, and audio resources, along with our active presence on social media, connects a global community of healthcare professionals dedicated to treating active individuals.
期刊最新文献
ChAnGe project: cardiopulmonary and strength analysis in gender transition. From research to practice: barriers to implementation of psychologically informed practice in the sports setting. Effects of percutaneous platelet-rich plasma injection on return-to-play after acute hamstring muscle injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. Safety as justification: gear-ratio regulation in professional cycling and the tendency towards restrictive governance. Physiological and health demands of Formula 1 motor racing: a comprehensive review with driver performance coach insight.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1